Re: <amarc-1> telecoms & strategy

["Jan Haverkamp" <jan.haverkamp@ecn.cz> (by way of Bram Dov Abramson <bram@tao.ca>)]

Aho everybody!

This list is expanding so fast that i could not keep up with it the 
last two weeks. I am now facing almost 50 longer responses, but 
i'll try to make this Sunday morning productive :-)

> Ed Sills here.  I think its time to jump aboard.  

Ed - you are one of *the* examples that people high-up are lulling 
themselves to sleep, if not waken up regularly by others which have 
their feet on the ground. To be honest, your reaction was the reason 
i didn't want to "just scan the messages", but really take some time 
for it. Thanks a lot!!!

> Can we form a group voice to lend weight to, or influence national
> decisions and policies concerning rights to communicate in all mediums
> at all levels?

My basic question is: should we form a group - should we create a 
mass-movement at all. I think this issue is different than, for 
instance, the nuclear weapon issue, where only a few actors are 
decisive, so that opposition or critique needs to come from a strong 
group-voice (mass-protests and so on). In the area of conventional 
media, you may be right - there the monopolisation of infrastructure 
and programming has gone sofar, that only a strong opponent might 
make a difference. But with the introduction of computer 
communication, i think we have an new tool against this. Not in mass 
voice, but in avoidance, or in bypassing this monopolisation. I am 
now regularly listening to live-stream radio over the Internet, 
bypassing our local Czech radio-stations and listening to BBC... With 
help of the Open Society Foundation (George Soros ;-) ) we are 
currently setting up a media training centre here in Prague - where 
also grass-roots and alternative circles will be able to gain the 
skills to use other techniques than the monopolised ones.
Of course, also the Internet can become controled and monopolised in 
infrastructure - and i wouldn't be surprised if it will be in ten 
years or so. But within APC we have learned a lot on the low-tech 
side of the computer communication spectrum. With use of simple 
text-only systems and dial-up networks we will always be able to 
circumvent any restriction in the new medium. The whole discussion 
around Internet freedom is interesting in this respect. I don't mind 
people trying to do something about child abuse on the Internet, but 
i also know that with the computer and computer communication we will 
from now on have the means to express anything in the end. If not 
over the Internet, then over alternative ways.

That is in my eyes the chance of Internet - and this does not need a 
big group - it can be done relatively decentralised (as the history 
of APC and FIDO-net have shown in the past). But we will probably not 
even need to set up our own infrastructure, as the existing one is so 
complex, that full control over it is, in my eyes, an illusion. Even 
now it is relatively simple to support organisations who are under 
the threat of being silenced - be it during the elections in Slovakia 
or in the case of warnings against companies with bad social or 
environmental records. What we *do* need for that are independent - 
non-commercial - progressive communication providers. I think the 
Association for Progressive Communication already offers such an 
infrastructure - which will, continue to motivate new 
initiatives all over the world. Not on the basis of one voice, but 
on the basis of thousands of local voices.

The negative side of this all is already pointed out by Georgina 
Napier a month ago: to enable ourselves to take advantage of these 
possibilities, at this moment too many people have to concentrate on 
new technologies and are drawn away from the "real" work.... This i 
see as a really large danger - and i am unfortunately a too good 
example of that :-(.

> In the same vane:  "Market self regulation" (thank you, David and Mark)
> If the United States is an example, shouldn't we figure out how to pull
> the plug and start over?  Or, how do we eliminate the idea that truth
> (and who gets to speak it) is for sale to the highest bidder?

I am very sceptic about whether it is still possible to push out 
the market from the conventional media. A good example is the Czech 
media-market, where in 1990 a commercial TV station (NOVA) started 
with very nice ideas about openness, high quailty information and so 
on. It is now by far out the largest station, but also the most 
manipulating one... and they serve 80% of TV watching Czechs with 
news! The state-owned CT1 tries to put quality against it, and they 
succeed quite well (copying a little the BBC in this, it seems to 
me), but they are under steady attack. My big question remains, why 
advertisers only seem to be able to support the low quality of NOVA. 
But if you look at the figures: only 20% of the Czechs watching CT1 
(NOVA and CT1 send their news on the same time), than this gets 
understandable...

So - within the movement here we even don't try anymore to bring 
sense into this. We bring a simplified message to NOVA and let 
ourselves be censored in what we say to them, we bring some more of 
our message over CT1, but increasingly use other media: print and 
Net... If necessary in private news-groups / conferences - to be sure 
that we reach our targetgroups directly.

> I would like to ask B. Keith, how can we know to look for something
> unless we know it's there?  I tell people every day, whatever you want
> to know, or find out about, it's there on the 'net.  Do they believe me?
> Do they believe you?

I think this is still a children's illness... at least over here not 
too many people use the 'net actively....  but the amount is 
increasing...

> I know there should be some sort of closing to this, but there isn't.  I
> also know that as long as we all keep asking questions, we will find the
> answers.      Aloha mai, ke aloha  ems

What i admire in your way of communication is the asking questions. 
It is a style which i am not so good in - i try to learn from you , 
but looking at the above written, i did not succeed at all - 
inherited more from my father (a preacher) than i sometimes like ;-) 
Sorry for that. 

love,

jan haverkamp
|
| Jan Haverkamp
| ECONNECT
| computer network for not-for-profit citizens organizations
| member of the Association for Progressive Communication (APC)
| Ceskomalinska 23
| tel.: +420.2.24311780
| fax:  +420.2.24317892|
|
| WWW: http://www.ecn.cz, http://www.apc.org
| e-mail: jan.haverkamp@ecn.cz
|
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
AMARC 7 Foro Virtual Forum Virtuel
http://www.amarc.org/amarc7
to unsubscribe / pour se desabonner / para abandonar :
e-mail "unsubscribe amarc-1 " to: majordomo@comunica.org